Thailand has been the subject of much critical, and speculative press in the US over the past 17 months, notably since a royally-aligned military Junta assumed control of the kingdom’s government from a “corrupt albeit democratically-elected” regime.
Many of the American headlines have shown the kingdom in a negative light, putting matters of politics, stability, diplomacy, military, trade and economics into the limelight.
Above all, it appears that investor confidence in Thailand is at stake with the baht having weakened by 12.5% over the past year, to 36 to the dollar, in light of declining exports and slower-than-anticipated economic growth, leaving much to be speculated.
No doubt, certain corporate interests have been challenged by recent political transitions, but whether as a factor of causation, correlation or coincidence is debatable.
Expected then is the typical lip service to democracy; media that selectively denounces oppressive tyrannical regimes in the name of human rights, liberty and freedom, while ignoring any/all other factors at play.
Entertain such notions further, and you will have little dissonance in agreeing with this recent report by Reuters–carried by several US-based media publications–that opposition to military rule in Thailand is growing as long as elections continue to be postponed.
But is the Thailand political sphere so simply, black and white as portrayed in such media?
Click link below to continue to part 2/6.